On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:26:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:
..
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
...
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

A lot of originally sound scientific ideas, which were developed
into theories which were tested and later dismissed because their
predictions failed to agree with observations, later reappear as
crank theories, where the crackpot trying to resurrect them ignore
the data and observations which made these theories fail.

That is true but I see Henry as being the crank,
not Ritz. I think it unfair to label the theory
and with it the original author when it was quite
reasonable to advance the idea in its time.

YMMV

George

To everyone: George is presently writing a monumental thesis entitled, "WHY
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG".

He spends hours every day sapping my brains to get material for it.

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.